Are you scientifically literate?

[GenSeneca]

so, you're OK with making Christianity the official religion of the USA?

I've seen no proof that Christians want to turn the US into a theocracy and I didn't expect to see you push such hyperbolic nonsense.

The people who cry the most about the separation of church and state are the same ones who cry about "don't ask don't tell", they want gays to be able to serve openly in the military.

In contrast, those same people, seem to want a "don't ask don't tell" policy in place for all religious politicians. Furthermore, many of them are so anti-theist that they wish to see all religious people banned from public service and all of religion banned from public life and they site the "wall of separation between church and state" as their justification for demanding freedom FROM religion.

I can see the Christian point of view, they are harassed and ridiculed by the anti-theists and the left in general. Christians are told they must be tolerant of others as they watch the federal government give a student grant money to sink a bible in a jar of urine and call it art but there is zero tolerance for Christians who wish to see the ten commandments remain in a courthouse where they've been for 50 years because that would be a violation of church and state.

 

[PLC1]

Typical response for a liberal.

Most absurd.

So, you have no response, and have to resort to juvenile labeling. OK, so be it. Still, there is that pesky first amendment to the Constitution that separates the powers of the church from those of the state.

This nation has citizens from many religions, some of which are in conflict in other lands, all living in peace, due to that wall of separation. Would you change that in order to give preferential treatment to one particular religion?

 

[PLC1]

I've seen no proof that Christians want to turn the US into a theocracy and I didn't expect to see you push such hyperbolic nonsense.

The people who cry the most about the separation of church and state are the same ones who cry about "don't ask don't tell", they want gays to be able to serve openly in the military.

In contrast, those same people, seem to want a "don't ask don't tell" policy in place for all religious politicians. Furthermore, many of them are so anti-theist that they wish to see all religious people banned from public service and all of religion banned from public life and they site the "wall of separation between church and state" as their justification for demanding freedom FROM religion.

I can see the Christian point of view, they are harassed and ridiculed by the anti-theists and the left in general. Christians are told they must be tolerant of others as they watch the federal government give a student grant money to sink a bible in a jar of urine and call it art but there is zero tolerance for Christians who wish to see the ten commandments remain in a courthouse where they've been for 50 years because that would be a violation of church and state.

I'm not sure I follow your connection between the religion of politicians and don't ask, don't tell. It seems to me that the religious views of our political leaders is a matter of personal preference.

As for soaking a Bible in a jar of urine, I have to agree, that is not something I would want to see tax money support. It is disgusting at best.

As for the Ten Commandments, when did that become a Christian tradition? Did Christ come down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments to give to his followers? That idea seems to me to be a re interpretation of the Bible.

Sure, let's post the Ten Commandments, no problem as far as I'm concerned. Let's have a nativity scene in public buildings, as long as my tax dollars don't pay for it. But, let's not call this great secular nation a Christian or a Jewish or any other kind of religious nation, as it is not. It is a refuge of liberty for adherents to all religions.

 

[GenSeneca]

This nation has citizens from many religions, some of which are in conflict in other lands, all living in peace, due to that wall of separation. Would you change that in order to give preferential treatment to one particular religion?

He has suggested no such thing as giving Christianity preferential treatment much less turning America into a Christian theocracy but you still prattle on as if he had...

 

[GenSeneca]

It is a refuge of liberty for adherents to all religions.

Are you going to seriously argue that Christianity is not the majority religion in this country?

Now if you agree that Christians do make up the majority, then why do you consider a Christian politician calling this a "Christian Nation" to be a call for establishing Christianity as a state religion and turning the US into a theocracy rather than the more obvious conclusion that the politician is simply stating the fact that Christians do make up the majority?

 

[PLC1]

Are you going to seriously argue that Christianity is not the majority religion in this country?

Of course not. We all know that there are more Christians than any other religion in this nation. So?

Now if you agree that Christians do make up the majority, then why do you consider a Christian politician calling this a "Christian Nation" to be a call for establishing Christianity as a state religion and turning the US into a theocracy rather than the more obvious conclusion that the politician is simply stating the fact that Christians do make up the majority?

A christian politician? What on earth are you talking about?

Orogenicman said:

Originally Posted by orogenicman
If you are going to make bigoted blanket statements such as the above, you have better some armed with the facts. The fact is that liberals do believe the Constitution restrains all of us. For instance, the Constitution makes clear that there is a wall of separation between church and state, and yet rich, white evangelical conservatives (and their pre-literate followers) would like nothing more than to tear that wall down and make Christianity the state religion, and create the world's largest theocracy. So you people have a lot more in common with countries like Iran than you realize.

To which Gipper, in his inimitable and tactful way responded:

Good Lord you must be kidding.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that states anything about a "wall of separation between church and state..." NOTHING!!! No matter what the fools on MSLSD told you.

Just as the great Ronald Reagan said..."Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so." You fit this perfectly.

Clearly, the conversation was not about which religion has the most adherents, but about the separation of church and state. Clearly, that separation does exist, therefore, I asked whether Gipper was OK with establishing Christianity as the state religion in this country. It seems like a logical question.

It wasn't me who suggested making Christianity an official religion, but Oregenicman, who is obviously opposed to the idea. Gipper seemed to me to be disagreeing.

 

[GenSeneca]

Gipper seemed to me to be disagreeing.

Gipper pointed out that there is no phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in the constitution, I understood what he was talking about, there is no such phrase.

I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that asking him if he supported turning America into a Christian theocracy is a "logical question" based on his statement.

Here, watch....

The Constitution does not contain the phrase "separation of church and state".

Now would it be "logical" of you to ask me if, based on that entirely accurate statement, I thought it was OK for the US to become a Christian theocracy?

 

[orogenicman]

Do you know the difference between the Constitution and a letter Jefferson wrote?

Guess not.

But just maybe, you learned something today.

Surely I do, and so does the Supreme Court, which has made very clear that Jefferson's letter is relevant to the issue of religious freedom, so much so, that they have cited it in their decisions. You didn't know this? Hmm.

 

[orogenicman]

Gipper pointed out that there is no phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in the constitution, I understood what he was talking about, there is no such phrase.

I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that asking him if he supported turning America into a Christian theocracy is a "logical question" based on his statement.

Here, watch....

The Constitution does not contain the phrase "separation of church and state".

Now would it be "logical" of you to ask me if, based on that entirely accurate statement, I thought it was OK for the US to become a Christian theocracy?

You didn't actually answer PCL's question, though, did you? Are you ok with the establishment of Christianity as the officially sanctioned religion of the Federal government? It is a simply yes or no question.

 

[PLC1]

Gipper pointed out that there is no phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in the constitution, I understood what he was talking about, there is no such phrase.

I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that asking him if he supported turning America into a Christian theocracy is a "logical question" based on his statement.

Here, watch....

The Constitution does not contain the phrase "separation of church and state".

Now would it be "logical" of you to ask me if, based on that entirely accurate statement, I thought it was OK for the US to become a Christian theocracy?

Now, you're taking it one step further. A Christian theocracy? did I use the word "theocracy"?

No, the Constitution does not use the phrase "separation of church and state." That is correct. The real wording is as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So, does that, or does it not constitute a separation of church and state?

And, if it does not, is it OK to establish Christianity as the official religion of the United States?

Both of those are simple yes or no questions that shouldn't strain anyone's ability to answer.

 

[Gipper]

So, you have no response, and have to resort to juvenile labeling. OK, so be it. Still, there is that pesky first amendment to the Constitution that separates the powers of the church from those of the state.

This nation has citizens from many religions, some of which are in conflict in other lands, all living in peace, due to that wall of separation. Would you change that in order to give preferential treatment to one particular religion?

I believe in the separation of church and state just not the way libs like you do.

My post, which you once again twisted, was to inform Rogen that no where in the Constitution does it state separation of church and state. I likely educated you and he/she and many other liberals who actually believe its in the Constitution because lib elites tell you this lie daily...you can thank me later.

You missed the point of my post as usual and then made an absurd assertion.

 

[orogenicman]

I believe in the separation of church and state just not the way libs like you do.

My post, which you once again twisted, was to inform Rogen that no where in the Constitution does it state separation of church and state. I likely educated you and he/she and many other liberals who actually believe its in the Constitution because lib elites tell you this lie daily...you can thank me later.

You missed the point of my post as usual and then made an absurd assertion.

There can no other interpretation of the 1st amendment than that it spells out the separation of church and state ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), particularly when Thomas Jefferson made clear its intention when it was written. It doesn't say that such separation is conditional on what some future Christian sect may believe (or any other sect for that matter). The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue as well. What part of this do you not understand?

 

[orogenicman]

"When religion and politics ride in the same cart, surely a whirlind follows."

-Frank Herbert

 

[Gipper]

What part of this do you not understand?

The part where you claimed the Constitution states wall of separation. It does not state this, but you clearly will not accept the fact that you are wrong.

Typical.

 

[orogenicman]

The part where you claimed the Constitution states wall of separation. It does not state this, but you clearly will not accept the fact that you are wrong.

Typical.

I did not claim that it states LITERALLY "all of separation. What the hell do you think it means when it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? It means believe whatever you care to believe, but don't expect the government to get on its knees and pray right along side you. It means that there is a line in the friggin sand that you do not cross. Got it? Yes? No? This is not rocket science.